IMDb > Day of the Dead (2008) (V) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Day of the Dead
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Day of the Dead (V) More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Reviews from users who voted this title less than 4.5.
Reviews from users who voted this title less than 4.5.
Page 2 of 15:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]
Index 142 matching reviews (259 reviews in total) 

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Awful Awful Awful

Author: sjanjic from Australia
13 July 2008

Frist I never post on IMDb first time, but I had to for this.

Plain and simple awful movie for a so many reasons... but I'll just name a few.

- Awful acting - Awful storyline - Awful characters - Awful one-liners - Awful ending ... I can keep on going.

What the ...... were they thinking when they made this flick, it's 2008 and you would think that they would have learned from previous zombie movie disasters. The thing that gets me is that they obviously had the money, it wasn't a low budget movie as far as special effects go etc... but the movie itself is just ugh.

I got to like 80% and couldn't watch anymore... if I only knew or listened to other IMDb members I wouldn't have wasted an hour or so of my life watching this.

The only thing that this movie had going for it is GI-Jane is pretty cute -- that's it.

Do yourself a favor AVOID IT.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Bloody Shame...

Author: Syed Ali Faheem Naqvi ( from Pakistan
20 June 2008

This movie should not be made at all... despite of box office failure Romero original was great movie.. the opening scene with dead in silent town.. 3 amazing kills... I have never feel such surreal in my whole life after watching day of dead (85) but this remake is S!@#T See dead bodies running make no sense.. it was kool in Dawn of Dead Remake because that director was amazing guy.. he build strong momentum in those zombie chase sequences...

Steve Miner somehow was busy in trying more and more than making one solid movie... It was more like Resident Evil original game movie than day of the dead... but still the opening in Resident Evil game is much much better than this movie...

Why Ving rhame accepted Rhodes..???

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Don't waste your time

Author: Richard Burdon from United Kingdom
4 April 2008

Let me get this out of the way straight away, I love Romero's zombie movies. There I said it. Now, this movie. This is supposed to be a remake of Romero's 1985 classic, REALLY! It in no way resembles the original. In a nutshell this is an absolute steaming pile of rubbish. Don't waste your time. Watch Romero's original instead. This movie was so bad I can't even remember half of it. I thought the remake of Dawn of the Dead was bad, but that was quite simply a masterpiece next to this effort. The only resemblance to the original is that both movies have soldiers in them. What would a remake of Land of the Dead contain I wonder, a truck. As I said, don't waste your time on this, watch the originals instead, you've been warned.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Why a whole day when 10 minutes is too much?

Author: Roger Southgate from United Kingdom
9 July 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Whilst a generation of sandal-wearing anti-disciplinarians have instilled into our consciousness the notion that there are no stupid questions, I like most rational people am of the school of thought that dictates quite the opposite; and not only that, but a stupid question must warrant a frank and scornful reply if we are to avoid such occurrences in future. The same can be said about bad movies warranting reviews of a similarly disdainful nature to save people like myself the time it takes to sit through one of these filmic abortions. Of course such tirades wouldn't exist without fuel from Hollywood's worst (a true shame for the deeply cynical among us); but these idiots need to know that you simply can't partly digest a known classic, regurgitate it along with a lot of bland methodology, mould it into something close to its original form, slap a name on it that the viewing public will respect and recognise, and have a box-office smash on your hands as a result. And yet this frankly pale imitation of a movie, let alone George A. Romero's seminal 'Day of the Dead', is absolutely the type of profiteering amateurism that could well give a cinephile a stomach ulcer. It really is difficult for me to decide what I liked least about this "remake" of 'Day of the Dead'. The list of failings is after all rather lengthy. The most noticeable failing of course (and the purpose for the quotation marks) is that this bore almost no likeness to the original in any way, except of course for Stark Sands embarrassing monkey impersonation as 'Bud', the zombie with a heart of a gold. This incidentally comes nowhere close to the understated brilliance of Howard Sherman's delivery of 'Bub', the fully actualised representation of the link between the living and the undead in the original. I came very close to naming Nick Cannon's overconfident portrayal of the painfully clichéd Black bad-ass who knows all too well "what we be talking' 'bout" as the biggest blight on this picture; however I would then have to ignore the terrible sound that often detracted from the impact of the action; the shoddy direction and amateur camera-work which often left me feeling confused about what was happening on screen; the hints at back stories that led nowhere; and the incredibly lazy and pedestrian dialogue which did nothing to reflect the wit and tension of Romero's, instead seemingly replacing it as a means to do nothing more than move the story onwards towards its excruciatingly inevitable conclusion. Let us not forget however the rather unnecessary attempt to rewrite undead mythology which will jab at the purist within us all. At times I was left feeling like I could have been watching something as equally foreign to the genre as 'Predator' or 'Ghosts of Mars' as veritable super-zombies planned attacks on our hapless heroes with military precision, even working together to achieve a common goal, and snatching a certain member of the cast from above like 'Alien'. Of course whilst the drama school dropouts seem to be flailing both in-front of and behind camera, let us not overestimate a veteran of stage and screen such as Ian McNeice. His frankly awful accent, which seems to shift back and forth across the Atlantic, is only dwarfed by his incomparable size. Ironically his ability to pile on the pounds is the only quality he seems to possess which would convincingly allow him to play your average American. Even Ving Rhames however, who was needless to say a welcome sight very early in proceedings, was heavily underutilised and killed off far too soon, even despite the important role that Joe Pilato's 'Captain Rhodes' played in the original story. Frankly I hope that Mr. Rhames' early demise was most likely a card he himself played to keep his time in production to an absolute minimum for very obvious reasons. I'm afraid to say that whilst the failings were many and numerous, ultimately what won for me was how some talentless nobody who has directed a couple of crappy teen dramas, and some hack that has done nothing but write scripts of the same calibre, can be left to play around with the usage rights to a classic horror picture like 'Day of the Dead'. From start to finish this was a chronicle of screw ups on every level, and yet what infuriates me is that it still hit the shelves because the unwitting public won't know how much it sucked until after they've already bought the DVD. What has clearly worked against the suits here however is the invitation we were all given to tear this thing apart the minute they tried to cash-in by associating this picture with Romero. It seems that where Zack Synder's 'Dawn of the Dead' will be hailed as a true labour of love from a fan of the series, this will do nothing but remind us that 99 times out of 100 a remake will leave a bad taste in our mouths that even human flesh would go a long way to quell.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

worst zombie film ever seen

Author: edwardtom9 from Australia
22 February 2009

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This is possibly the worst horror / zombie film I've ever seen, there are so many parts that make my eyes roll for example...

A vegetarian zombie that falls in love, sped up footage, horrible Computer generated head explosions and be-headings, gun shop to stock up on unlimited amounts of ammo, zombies can climb on walls like spiders and many more.

the film was actually decent before the zombies appeared. Ultimately this film was very disappointing, i pretty much love all zombie films with the exception of this and the 28 days/weeks later films.

1/10 stars

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Let Down

Author: silverlock5 from United States
28 February 2008

First, I want to say I loved the remake of Dawn of the Dead. Because they did such a good job (even if the Zombies were fast moving), I was looking forward to Day of the Dead. Boy have I been let down. Others have said it, and I want to confirm it. In this movie, Zombies not only move fast, but they crawl on ceilings, Jump large distances like striking spiders, and sometimes run on walls. A person infected will also go from looking like a normal person one second to a hideous deformed creature the next. To put my opinion in perspective for others, I love the original Night of the dead movies. I even liked the first two Night of the Living Dead movies and thought Resident Evil was a decent popcorn zombie movie. But I hated House of the Dead.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

If this were meant to be a comedy it would be 5 stars

Author: derceto-3 from Canada
4 August 2008

This board is full of ranting and complaining already, so I won't add to the pile, and it's taking a lot of effort to restrain myself from doing so. I quite simply spent the entire movie laughing at how pathetic and worthless this film is. The dialog and sequence of events in this movie were nothing short of comical. To think that everyone involved in this production were trying to make a serious horror film is down right baffling. This movie scores an F- in every single imaginable category. A waste of eyesight and a waste of hearing. Instead of spending 80 minutes watching this travesty, you may consider cleaning your toilet or something along those lines. I'm sure it would be more entertaining than this mess. Not the "worst" movie I've ever seen, but is that a redeemable quality? Not by a long shot. View at your own risk.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Bub nor Bud

Author: Drunken Master from Ottawa, Canada
7 March 2008

To convince you of the incompetence of the filmmakers, I have just one thing to point out about this crappy excuse for a zombie movie:

They got the name of the lead zombie wrong. Romero's protagonist-zombie in his 1985 classic Day of the Dead is named Bub; in this pathetic 2008 remake they call him Bud. How can they screw that up? It's like remaking Star Wars and calling your lead character Daryl Skywalker.

If you thought Day of the Dead 2: Contagium was the lousiest zombie movie ever made -- think again. Oh wait -- this remake is produced by the guy who directed Contagium. And he also directed the ultra-lousy Creepshow 3. I can't tell if James Glenn Dudelson is trying to single-handedly destroy the legacy of George A. Romero, or if he simply making Romero's movies better. Thanks to this 2008 remake, Romero's 1985 Day of the Dead is an American classic.

Enough said.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

bad movie very bad

Author: prime801 from United States
19 February 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

first off don't listen to what any of these people who rated this movie good... the movie was garbage.. a pile of hot garbage in fact. the zombies in this movie have super strength which include crawling around on the ceiling , jumping super high ,jumping out windows, running real fast and on top of it all , wield m16 machine guns(a whole group of them !! Oh lets not forget driving vehicles on top of that.but after i seen the m16 wielding zombies i was tempted to shut this off but i figure since i was committed to finish it. the only thing good about this movie was some of the effects. (even tho must of them were cgi , there are still some good ones in there.) if you are a George Romero fan of true zombie movies you will be very disappointed about this movie. hell i like the dawn of the dead remake, even land was OK.. this is one of the worst movie's i have seen in a long time. please save your time for something good. like diary of the dead(Romero film) coming soon.. don't listen to these good reviews, this will leave you a bad taste in your mouth. go watch 30 days of night thats what i had to do after this flick . it washed the bad taste out of my mouth..

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

I am still shaking in awe of this film!!!

Author: perkin2000 from United Kingdom
7 January 2009

On a horror website I frequent, many people posted derogatory comments about this film. The site's owner said that the worse people insulted the film, the more people are likely to part with their hard-earned to see it. Such is the strange world of horror websites. Well, with that in mind, I'd like to wholeheartedly recommend this absolute flippin' masterpiece.

The narrative, framed in a style that some would consider 'poor', 'amateurish' or 'atrociously bad' I consider to be a learn-by-example of unparalleled genius. It challenges our conceptions of what makes for good cinema, or even 'entertainment', and offers, instead, a story-structure and pace that allows one so much interpretation. As a viewer you will look deep inside yourself, back and forward through time, out of the window, in your pockets... Pretty much anywhere but the screen while it's on. SUCH is the profundity of the Day Of The Dead 2008 experience.

The performances are, in a word, acting. There are many other words that could be used, but I think the director should be applauded for making use of people from the 'special communities'. Their unique interpretations of emotional responses are brave, their struggle evident in every laboured motion and word. It almost brings a tear to the eye, especially when comparing this to the original D.O.T.D. which relied so heavily on such conventional approaches to acting. These are the kind of challenges we should confront ourselves as viewers of high class cinema.

Scares? Well, in the original, we had the hands coming out of the wall, Dr Tongue, the amazing Rhodes death scene, the metaphorical, regan-era cold war tension between science and military, the oppressive gloom of the miles of underground tunnels filled with the groaning dead. This version does away with such things, instead employing a cast of utterly lovely photogenic models barely out of their teens. Surely this, more than anything Romero has ever done, reminds us to be cautious of our collective attitudes towards the increasingly disposable nature of society, how living for now, and only caring about image and asthetics will surely come back and bite us. The lack of gore just reinforces the fact that beauty is only skin deep and looks fade with age... or infection from a zombie bite. In this one, the zombies can also climb on walls and stuff. Which is also brilliant. And not at all rubbish.

To summarise, this is the best film ever made in the history of all existence and should be experienced by everyone at least one thousand times. In NO WAY is it a cynical exploitation of focus group, corporate demographic mentality, created entirely for audiences of pubescent, text-speak, MySpace idiots who will whoop at any bright colours and loud noises like a bunch of hollering sub-cretins in dire need of having some real life punched into their vacant, teenage, mouth-breathing faces.

Yes, please see it. You wont regret it.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 2 of 15:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Awards
External reviews Parents Guide Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history